How can the fact that nobody say exactly what it was disprove my statement that it was a miss perception?*
But they DID say what it was. The witnesses were very clear and specific about what they saw. So their perception seems to have been very clear and quite consistent between people.*
If their brains are Natural it cannot understand the Supernatural so the brain tries to organize what you see in the thing that makes most sense possible. In this case it was movement of the sun. This just proves my case that people cannot in this lifetime perceive the Divine in all its splendor.*
So you are saying that people perceived something happening which was in fact not happening. Yes?
This is the most blatant proof that you are already assuming the conclusion and not weighting the argument.*
Not at all, all I am assuming for the sake of this discussion is that the catholic churches description of Gods attributes is correct, and that the events at Fatima represent a genuine miracle.*
Do you think this “flies” with Catholics? Jesus is God and He didn’t convince everybody He spoke to that He was God… does that mean He made a mistake?*
No, but if God is omniscient then clearly he must have known in advance this would be the case. He must have intended it to be thus. There is nothing which says Jesus intended or expected for
everyone to believe him. As they say, the Lord moves in mysterious ways.
Same as previous… you obviously think everything that happens is “the Will of God” *(and I say that in the most respectful way because you obviously have no understanding of Catholic Philosophy regarding Free Will and God’s Will).
Everything that results directly from Gods actions must be Gods will, yes. The only way that free will would be relevant is if all those people who saw the miracle actually decided to go against Gods will to DECIDE to see something different to what God was trying to show them. Clearly this is a bit silly so I won’t bother to reply to this one.
I was right in both accounts… your definition of Hallucination has nothing to do with what I stated.
You claimed that I did not understand the terms I was using. I have demonstrated that the way I was using the terms was correct by showing you the definitions of the terms from dictionaries.*
It is…*
Check 2 b (1)… almost word for word.
Perhaps it would help to remind you what you said. Here its is:
If our senses missinterpret a real stimulus it doesn’t mean that the stimulus was deceptive".*
Apparently you think this is the definition of hallucination but it is not… It is the definition of Illusion.*
Now 2 b(1) says:**b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature
The two are nothing like each other, let alone word for word.
You use both words interchangeably… I am not. That proves my point.
Neither am I, I have been quite clear on the differences between the two. So all this shows is that you are misunderstanding or being deliberately obtuse.
I clearly explained myself what I meant when I used my definition… you simply ignored what I said and even tried to conflate it with hallucination which has nothing to do with it.
Actually if you read what I wrote carefully you’ll see I asked you to explain what you were trying to say because it made no sense to me. Here it is again:
“If this is important to you could you explain what you’re trying to say please?”
No conflating, just a request for clarification on what I found to be very unclear writing.
And as you can see “deception” is in the “obsolete” part of the meaning of Illusion.*
Er, guessing you haven’t noticed it’s ALSO in the “current” part of the meaning? Here it is again for your convenience:
2 a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that
deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature
I meant Illusion as (and quoted from YOUR DEFINITION):
“perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature”
That’s another meaning of it yes.*
1st: If by “the sun” you mean the star approximately at 8 minutes light speed away from planet Earth, no.
Yes, that’s the sun. Excellent. So you don’t believe the sun was really dancing…
2nd: A lot of people there saw the sun dancing (and also experienced fast drying of clothes as far as I remember).
… But a lot of people saw the sun even though it wasn’t.*
3rd: Yes there is a difference, because a lot of the people in that area experienced a miracle (the Supernatural). And the best “proof” I have is that not all the people there experienced it. If it had been indeed a mass hallucination I expected that pretty much all the common people there to experience the same thing while a significantly smaller proportion of the most educated people there would also experience it, but according to the reports that is not what happened. Almost everyone that had higher education or had enough to work in Newspapers and the like reported the experience while a significant part of the people who went there expecting to see something did not. This also eliminates an atmospheric event because that would have to have been experienced by everyone. I believe in the Supernatural. I believe that the Supernatural is not like the Natural world. I expect that when the Supernatural influences the Natural World we can identify it and this case is one of the most easy ones to make this spot on. When the Supernatural affects the Natural world it distorts it somehow, bends it, like the space time is bent by gravity, and more so it affects people differently because not everyone has the same “reception” (let’s call it like that for the purpose of this exercise).*
Ok, so you’re saying that you believe that due to some supernatural influence a large number of people saw something happening which was not REALLY happening. Correct?
If so do you attribute this supernatural influence to God?*
There you go admitting what God can and cannot do when you don’t even understand what God is…
Well I’m just assuming for the sake of discussion that what the Catholic church says about God is accurate.*
This is so typical. Build a straw man and charge at it while you can.
??? No idea what you’re talking about here I’m afraid. Are you saying that God ISN’T omniscient? Or that God being omniscient DOESN’T mean that he knows the affect of his actions before he does them? Or something else?*
As far as I can tell all I’ve done is assumed that the Catholic church accurately describes the attributes of God, and the event that occurred at Fatima was a genuine miracle. If you find one of these assumptions inappropriate then please say so and I’ll adjust accordingly.
Nobody believes that God created the miracle so people would think He is powerful enough to move the sun. Everybody knows He is that powerful… but God did not choose this miracle to show off. This miracle was solely for the people to believe the 3 little shepherds.*
I never said he did. Indeed I have on thus thread specifically stated that I’m not looking to speculate on the potential motives of God. If you believe you know that this was his motivation then fair enough, I have no interest in disagreeing with you.*
If you don’t believe in God please don’t assume you know what He can and cannot do, or what He knows.
A believer cannot assume…*
Again, I’ve stated my assumptions. I’ve assumed the Catholic church is correct in the attributes it ascribes to God. I have not assumed anything else about what God can and cannot do. If you disagree with the church on the attributes of God then please let me know and I’ll adjust accordingly.
But it is always fun to talk about it…
